Bush Puts Brakes on Big 3 Bailout  |   Home  |   Rep. Wood Arrested for OWI and Pot Possession

Poll: 45% of U.S. Voters Think Obama’s Team Was Likely Involved in Scandal

Apparently, Illinois has triple the number of delusional idiots as the rest of the nation.

Forty five percent (45%) of U.S. voters say it is likely President-elect Obama or one of his top campaign aides was involved in the unfolding Blagojevich scandal in Illinois, including 23% who say it is Very Likely.

Just 11% say it is not at all likely, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey taken Thursday and Friday nights.

Voters nationally are more skeptical than those in Illinois. Thirty-two percent (32%) of Illinois voters said in a survey late last week that there is no way Obama was involved in the Blagojevich case, while only 13% said it is Very Likely that the president-elect was involved, with another 13% saying it is Somewhat Likely.

Obama and his staff may be totally clean here, but to say that there’s “no way” that Obama or his staff were involved is ridiculous. 

With nearly half the nation thinking that Obama’s team may have been involved, he needs to address this aggressively.

Posted by Owen at 0758 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

1. he needs to address this aggressively.

   I think he is working on that right now - just give him a few more days to consult & “dialogue” with his advisors before he gets back to you with a decisive answer.  You also might want to allow him the opportunity to use the internet to get “input” from his supporters on what type of response would fit in their “comfort zone”.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2008 at 1115 hrs
   
   
   

2. I’m curious to see who they throw under the bus for this one.

   Probably what they are ‘discussing’ now. The guy hasn’t even started yet and already he’s got a scandal to deal with. This is going to make the Clinton years look tame.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2008 at 1201 hrs
   
   
   

3. Shyeeah.  What percent of voters thought Saddam was involved in 9/11 after their television repeatedly planted that idea in their heads?  I think one of the easiest things to do is to convince people that a politician is “involved in” a scandal, once his name has been brought up in every single mention of that scandal.  That doesn’t mean there’s a shred of evidence that it’s true.

   Posted by scott on December 15, 2008 at 1244 hrs
   
   
   

4. No it doesn’t, but to think that there is “no way” that their could have been involvement is naive beyond belief.

   Posted by Owen on December 15, 2008 at 1248 hrs
   
   
   

5. No, I wouldn’t go with no way.  There’s a way.  That way would involve there being some actual evidence that he’s actually involved in some kind of wrongdoing.

   The current occupant has lots of evidence against him that he’s involved in a whole series of shocking illegal acts.  Yet the only thing conservatives will say against him is that he didn’t cut spending or something.  And here you guys are, up Obama’s rear end before he’s even wiped his feet on the welcome mat of the white house, about a scandal in which he is not actually implicated.

   I can’t say I expected anything different.  It’s partisanship.  How the game is played.  It just makes me very sad.

   Posted by scott on December 15, 2008 at 1254 hrs
   
   
   

6. What should sadden you is the refusal by some to ask very legitimate questions.  You seem ready to give him an entire pass without even finding out the whole story.  Such blind trust of politicians is dangerous.

   Posted by Owen on December 15, 2008 at 1307 hrs
   
   
   

7. Such blind trust of politicians is dangerous.

   No matter what their party affiliation.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2008 at 1320 hrs
   
   
   

8. Obama was dirty from the start (Ayers, Resco, Wright, et al) . No-one will care. Like everyone else said,  for the liberals, the end justifies the means.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2008 at 1340 hrs
   
   
   

9. Don’t they already know that Rahm Emanuel was the one talking with the Governor’s office? 

   Listen, it makes perfect sense that the Obama team would have been talking to Blago about filling his seat.  For Obama to issue blanket denials is what stretches the imagination.  He is making it look worse than it most likely is.  If they would have come out and said that they had been in contact, but had no knowledge of the illegal goings-on it would be a non-issue.  Instead, by making it look like he is hiding something, now the story has a life of its own.

   That isn’t partisan - that is reality of politics.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2008 at 1401 hrs
   
   
   

10. Yay, I agree with pjr…

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2008 at 1702 hrs
    
    
    

11. It’s hard for me to view this kind of discussion as anything but naked partisanship.  Didn’t most of you suspicious ones back Bush on his extra-legal wiretapping escapades?

    Anyway, Obama has made a statement about who talked to whom and what wasn’t said.  You’re suspicious?  Good for you.  All I care about is that the governor of Illinois gets run out of the state on a rail.  If some evidence comes up that anyone—including Obama—did something unethical or illegal, let’s have them answer for that, too.  Until such evidence materializes, we’re left with partisan opportunism and nothing more.

    Posted by scott on December 15, 2008 at 1709 hrs
    
    
    

12. Obama has made no statement about who talked to whom and what was said.  He has released no details whatsoever.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2008 at 1721 hrs
    
    
    

13. I was only referring to this:

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/15/14536/475/899/673366

    Posted by scott on December 15, 2008 at 1723 hrs
    
    
    

14. That statement contains no detail.  Any judgement made by anyone outside the investigation is, at this point, a judgement reached without any facts.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2008 at 1730 hrs
    
    
    

15. Wow - the DailyKos - that’s a reliable journalistic source

    
    

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2008 at 1841 hrs
    
    
    

16. Wow, Boots & Kittens, that’s a reliable journalistic source.

    Posted by scott on December 15, 2008 at 1844 hrs
    
    
    

17. >Wow, Boots & Kittens, that’s a reliable journalistic source.

    Wow, Owen (or this blog) was sourced somewhere?  Where was that scott?

    In one post you decry partisanship, and in the other you act partisan.  It just makes me very sad.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2008 at 0832 hrs
    
    
    

18. Look, there’s not a single difference between what’s on Kos and what’s here.  Both are bloggers discussing mainstream sources and letting people discuss it below.  If I can’t use the Kos entry as a way to refer people to the story and the link, then neither can Owen do so above.  Besides, I wasn’t trying to convince anyone of anything.  I was merely pointing out that Obama’s team had in fact made a statement, as I indicated above.

    Posted by scott on December 16, 2008 at 0934 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.